I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure if you understand the point of the conversation though, it was (at least for me) more of what we should do, not about a fear of what might realistically happen. No sane person beleives that they will have their firearms taken by force due to some new law being passed, however the having some guns from being purchased in the future is a real concern.

(19-01-2013 07:18 PM)Dark Light Wrote: I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure if you understand the point of the conversation though, it was (at least for me) more of what we should do, not about a fear of what might realistically happen. No sane person beleives that they will have their firearms taken by force due to some new law being passed, however the having some guns from being purchased in the future is a real concern.

Yeah, I didn't address that. But for much the same reasons, and adding the rights of business owners, I don't see the restraint of manufacturing and selling firearms to be ended. Making the manufacture and sale of firearms and/or ammunition illegal would not pass the House. It is so anti-business and anti-Second Amendment that it hasn't a ghost of a chance in this Congress.

The Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to the death rate from firearms, and I doubt it can get re-instated. Most firearms murders (like 99%) are committed with handguns.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(19-01-2013 06:47 PM)Dark Light Wrote: You could say the same thing about any topic that's ever been discussed, ever. You jumped in the debate, said you would like to ban all guns, then turn around and say you wouldn't ban all guns and you don't care. No debate on the TTA is "needed", no one on here has a "need" to convince anyone else on here of anything, but we do it for various reasons. If you're not interested so be it, though I certainly could add plenty to the debate. I won't, however, waste my time if you are apathetic. Good day.

When I said I would ban all guns, I was sort of being ironic. I just said that I would say, "ban all guns", to mean that, for me, that would be a reasonable starting out point. Obviously, "ban all guns" is a hyperbolic statement anyway. I was going to elaborate, at that time, but decided to hold. I just see people in my position, ideologically (like I was trying to address in the NRA Killed the Debate thread), that actually have play in the national debate (politicians, people in the media, etc.), sometimes just the average person, who kind of take a soft path, by not being serious about what would actually have to happen for gun laws to be reasonable, and picking out a starting point for debate, initial proposal, leading into compromise, that is basically complete bullshit, a joke. I was also, at that point, and at other times, trying to imply, even if just implicitly, that I was kind of apathetic toward the issue. It's all for political theater: it's to make the liberals think you give a shit about making legitimate gun laws, and to make conservatives think that you're not for doing anything that would be against their views, enough to upset them.

I obviously still have my views against guns, but I was just saying that is extremely unlikely to change unless you pulled out something amazing from your hat. I guess I shouldn't have said that there wasn't "any more you have to add". I just, personally, didn't see anything, that you could add, based on what you already said, that would be relevant to me and what I was saying and change my mind. I could be wrong, so you can add whatever you want (it's an open thread, forum, that I didn't start). You can add what you want to the thread or in response, if there is something you think adds to it. I guess I just wasn't careful with they way I phrased that part.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(19-01-2013 07:11 PM)Chas Wrote: It isn't likely that firearms will be banned in the U.S.A. anytime soon. There are about 300,000,000 of them in civilian possession, the House of Representatives has a Republican majority, the Second Amendment right to individual possession of firearms was recently upheld by the Supreme Court, the NRA is a strong presence, and so on.

Many states have strong firearms laws, some don't, but at least 33 states have what are termed "shall issue" licensing laws. The state has to provide a valid legal reason to deny the citizen a license to possess a firearm, otherwise it must issue the license.

There are rational and reasonable uses for firearms, including self-defense, hunting, competitive shooting, and collecting.

These are all also legal reasons.

If you are not a hunter or shooter, or are simply not familiar with firearms, then your debating what are proper or reasonable firearms that people may possess does not strike those of us who are knowledgeable as very productive.

Do you believe you know enough to suggest to me what is a reasonable firearm for self-defense? Or for hunting? Or for any of the shooting sports?

I see the real problem as a violent society that is violent due to many factors, the greatest of which are wealth and income disparity, coupled with poor social services - especially mental health care. I believe we need to work on those.

I obviously (at least it seems that way) will disagree with you on how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted, but apart from that I have some quick questions.

First what do you mean by this: "If you are not a hunter or shooter, or are simply not familiar with firearms, then your debating what are proper or reasonable firearms that people may possess does not strike those of us who are knowledgeable as very productive."

Do you mean as far as banning, limiting, restricting guns and/or gun ownership, in general? Or do you mean as far as banning types of guns (e.g. semi vs. fully auto; "assault" vs "hunting"), etc.? If that latter, I could see how you would want someone who technically knows what they were talking about; but if the former, that confuses me. With the former, that kind of seems analogous to telling someone who isn't a pedophile (and doesn't watch child porn), that it's not very productive for them to take part in a discussion about their views on laws against child pornography and pedophilia.

Also, coming from the opposite side of philosophically, fundamental views, toward the topic: How do you view, for example, me thinking that "self-defense, hunting, competitive shooting" are not any more rational and reasonable of an excuse to own firearms, than simply wanting to commit crimes like murder, assault? Or, I guess, why is it that you think that those are legitimate, as arguments for why guns should be allowed to be owned and/or a protected right given to every individual in a society (minus where due process applies)?

If your questions were not simply rhetorical, then I've already answered them: I personally don't think that people should be able to own guns for those purposes; if part of a compromise, where I was giving something up, I'd let someone else argue what they thought would be reasonable to be owned by people in rural areas, and why. I wouldn't even entertain the idea of shooting sports or self defense. Apart from for those people who I'd include as being able to have access to guns (e.g. police, military, etc).

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(19-01-2013 07:11 PM)Chas Wrote: It isn't likely that firearms will be banned in the U.S.A. anytime soon. There are about 300,000,000 of them in civilian possession, the House of Representatives has a Republican majority, the Second Amendment right to individual possession of firearms was recently upheld by the Supreme Court, the NRA is a strong presence, and so on.

Many states have strong firearms laws, some don't, but at least 33 states have what are termed "shall issue" licensing laws. The state has to provide a valid legal reason to deny the citizen a license to possess a firearm, otherwise it must issue the license.

There are rational and reasonable uses for firearms, including self-defense, hunting, competitive shooting, and collecting.

These are all also legal reasons.

If you are not a hunter or shooter, or are simply not familiar with firearms, then your debating what are proper or reasonable firearms that people may possess does not strike those of us who are knowledgeable as very productive.

Do you believe you know enough to suggest to me what is a reasonable firearm for self-defense? Or for hunting? Or for any of the shooting sports?

I see the real problem as a violent society that is violent due to many factors, the greatest of which are wealth and income disparity, coupled with poor social services - especially mental health care. I believe we need to work on those.

I obviously (at least it seems that way) will disagree with you on how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted, but apart from that I have some quick questions.

Not my opinion - the Supreme Court's opinion is that it is an individual right.

Quote:

(20-01-2013 11:45 AM)TrulyX Wrote:
First what do you mean by this: "If you are not a hunter or shooter, or are simply not familiar with firearms, then your debating what are proper or reasonable firearms that people may possess does not strike those of us who are knowledgeable as very productive."

Do you mean as far as banning, limiting, restricting guns and/or gun ownership, in general? Or do you mean as far as banning types of guns (e.g. semi vs. fully auto; "assault" vs "hunting"), etc.? If that latter, I could see how you would want someone who technically knows what they were talking about; but if the former, that confuses me.

I meant banning or limiting types of weapons. The Assault Weapons Ban is an example of ignorant legislation. Certain firearms were banned on purely cosmetic reasons.

If we are going to debate firearms, then there is a minimal level of firearms-related knowledge required to have a useful discussion.

Quote:
Also, coming from the opposite side of philosophically, fundamental views, toward the topic: How do you view, for example, me thinking that "self-defense, hunting, competitive shooting" are not any more rational and reasonable of an excuse to own firearms, than simply wanting to commit crimes like murder, assault? Or, I guess, why is it that you think that those are legitimate, as arguments for why guns should be allowed to be owned and/or a protected right given to every individual in a society (minus where due process applies)?

Do you not believe in a right to self-defense? Is it irrational for me to want to protect myself?
The purposes I listed are all legal and ethical purposes

Quote:If your questions were not simply rhetorical, then I've already answered them: I personally don't think that people should be able to own guns for those purposes; if part of a compromise, where I was giving something up, I'd let someone else argue what they thought would be reasonable to be owned by people in rural areas, and why. I wouldn't even entertain the idea of shooting sports or self defense.

I maintain I have a right to self-defense. A firearm is the best tool for the job.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(20-01-2013 11:57 AM)Chas Wrote: Not my opinion - the Supreme Court's opinion is that it is an individual right.

I meant banning or limiting types of weapons. The Assault Weapons Ban is an example of ignorant legislation. Certain firearms were banned on purely cosmetic reasons.

The current majority of the Supreme Court; but I meant, that if you agreed with it, I would disagree with you.

I would agree with an "Assault Weapon Ban" being bad legislation. I would just say that it was more political.

Quote:If we are going to debate firearms, then there is a minimal level of firearms-related knowledge required to have a useful discussion.

I could see that, if you were debating details, but a general conversation about guns in society, in my opinion, would have an extremely low threshold for gun specific (technical) knowledge.

Quote:Do you not believe in a right to self-defense? Is it irrational for me to want to protect myself?
The purposes I listed are all legal and ethical purposes

Do I believe that if someone throws a punch at your face (just an example), you have the right to block? Not really. Define "right"? It would depend on that definition.

Do I believe that if a person is capable of blocking, there should be laws that punish that person for doing so? Absolutely not. If that is what you mean by right to defend yourself (or something similar), I believe it is something that should be allowed, without laws against it.

Quote:I maintain I have a right to self-defense. A firearm is the best tool for the job.

I hold the view that a gun (a weapon) is a tool for offense, not a defensive tool. A tool for self defense, might be a home alarm system, locks, bulletproof windows or vests, shields, helmets, etc.

Defense is what you do in response, as a reaction, to something, usually that someone else is doing, to prevent an intended goal. An example would be like a basketball player moving his feet to stay in front of an opponent to prevent an opponent from getting past them, or blocking the attempt at a shot, pass or dribble; things like shooting and looking for a pass, would be offensive.

Guns, to me, are offense all the way. Self defense, therefore, in my view, doesn't involve guns, because guns are offensive tools. Some people might say that the "best defense is a good offense", but I would have to point out, you're still taking about offense. You can't use the phrase "self defense" to make it sound lesser; that would be the exact same as a person using the term "assault weapon" to make it sound more.

Now, do I think that people should have protections, justification under law, a right if you will, to take offensive action against a person who first takes certain immoral actions against them first? And as most state laws outline this (some do it poorly), yes; however, a gun is not necessary (logically) for that, and I don't see it necessary (practically), to the point where it requires a right, dictated by the laws, of individuals to own them.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(20-01-2013 11:57 AM)Chas Wrote: Not my opinion - the Supreme Court's opinion is that it is an individual right.

I meant banning or limiting types of weapons. The Assault Weapons Ban is an example of ignorant legislation. Certain firearms were banned on purely cosmetic reasons.

The current majority of the Supreme Court; but I meant, that if you agreed with it, I would disagree with you.

I would agree with an "Assault Weapon Ban" being bad legislation. I would just say that it was more political.

Quote:If we are going to debate firearms, then there is a minimal level of firearms-related knowledge required to have a useful discussion.

I could see that, if you were debating details, but a general conversation about guns in society, in my opinion, would have an extremely low threshold for gun specific (technical) knowledge.

Quote:Do you not believe in a right to self-defense? Is it irrational for me to want to protect myself?
The purposes I listed are all legal and ethical purposes

Do I believe that if someone throws a punch at your face (just an example), you have the right to block? Not really. Define "right"? It would depend on that definition.

Do I believe that if a person is capable of blocking, there should be laws that punish that person for doing so? Absolutely not. If that is what you mean by right to defend yourself (or something similar), I believe it is something that should be allowed, without laws against it.

Quote:I maintain I have a right to self-defense. A firearm is the best tool for the job.

I hold the view that a gun (a weapon) is a tool for offense, not a defensive tool. A tool for self defense, might be a home alarm system, locks, bulletproof windows or vests, shields, helmets, etc.

Defense is what you do in response, as a reaction, to something, usually that someone else is doing, to prevent an intended goal. An example would be like a basketball player moving his feet to stay in front of an opponent to prevent an opponent from getting past them, or blocking the attempt at a shot, pass or dribble; things like shooting and looking for a pass, would be offensive.

Guns, to me, are offense all the way. Self defense, therefore, in my view, doesn't involve guns, because guns are offensive tools. Some people might say that the "best defense is a good offense", but I would have to point out, you're still taking about offense. You can't use the phrase "self defense" to make it sound lesser; that would be the exact same as a person using the term "assault weapon" to make it sound more.

Now, do I think that people should have protections, justification under law, a right if you will, to take offensive action against a person who first takes certain immoral actions against them first? And as most state laws outline this (some do it poorly), yes; however, a gun is not necessary (logically) for that, and I don't see it necessary (practically), to the point where it requires a right, dictated by the laws, of individuals to own them.

I do not understand your concept of right to defend oneself. No right to block a punch? WTAF?

Your other concepts of self-defense is completely unrealistic. How does a small or weak or disabled person defend against larger, stronger, or multiple assailants?

A helmet? You must be joking.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Have you all come to your senses yet and accepted that American gun law is not sufficient and needs to be revised?

No, because it's not the gun laws, it's health care and social services.

In regards to mass shootings perhaps.
But 11,000 a year is still 11,000 a year. Are you saying that all those 11,000 people that were killed were killed by a mentally unstable person slipping under the radar?